9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 137
Pages: <<  134    135    136    137    138    139    140  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times


reply posted on 21-2-2006 @ 12:55 AM by kart69
Someone on this thread asked "why would they cover the grass with sand and gravel for no reason when the grass in front of the building was not damaged. Did you ever think that the grassy area would have a problem with all of the vehicles that would be needed. They would tear the whole place up. Think about if it started raining anytime duing the next days and weeks. Every vehicle would get stuck. If you look at the photo of the gravel being placed down, there is a plastic liner with the gravel/sand laid on top. That is a normal process to protect an area from vehicles. Take a look at how they set up a field for arena cross or monter trucks. All these people that believe in these conspirecy theories seem to think that everyone else is close minded. Its the other way around.... The theorist are the ones that are closed minded. They are completly oblivious to anything that shows examples that can explain what happened. They are dead locked on half backed ideas with croped photos, twisted facts, and just plain ingorance. They take the word as gospel from people with other agendas. These other agendas are things like Selling Books, Subscriptions to news letters, Political bashing, and self fulfullment. Does this seem anything like "Blind Faith" without any real proof. In this case there is SO much evidence and explanations that any halfway intelligent person who actually opens his/her mind and read the information on this forum, and the other usless forums on this subject, will realize that the theories are just crap. Those that are not at least halfway intelligent dont matter anyway. They will never be able to form a useful opinion anyway.


reply posted on 21-2-2006 @ 01:28 AM by Zaphod58
Originally posted by ANOK Ok engine weight... RR....37,400 lbs RB211....40,000 lbs (not sure which it was)
So you're claiming that the 757 engine weght is between 37,400 and 40,000? Try thrust rating, not weight my friend. The Trent 900, which is for the A380 is the largest engine ever made by Rolls Royce, and it weighs in at 6300 kilos, which is roughly 13860 pounds, or just under 7 tons. But the smaller RB211-535 used on the 757 is going to weigh that much more? I don't think so.
The weight of the Trent 900 engine itself is roughly 6300 kg, with a length of 5.3 metres, a diameter of circa 3 metres and with all externals roughly four metres in diameter. Each Trent 900 offers take-off thrust of between 330 and 375 kN (74000-84000 pounds), depending on the variant. The twin-deck 555-seat Airbus A380 will be equipped with four Trent 900 engines, and thus will be able to take off with a thrust of up to 1500 kN, or 336,000 pounds.
www.easa.eu.int...
The Rolls-Royce Trent 900, the largest aero engine the company has ever built, will be unveiled along with the new Airbus A380 at a special ceremony in Toulouse on Tuesday (18 January).
With a fan diameter of 116 inches, the Trent 900 is physically the largest engine ever built by Rolls-Royce. It is also the world’s cleanest large turbofan engine, measured by emissions per pound of thrust.
www.azom.com...
Engine EIS Power Applications Seats* Range (nm)* -535C 1983 37,000lb 166kN Boeing 757-200 200 3040 -535 E4 1984 40,100lb 178kN Boeing 757-200 Boeing 757-300 Tupolev Tu-204 200 3900 -535E4B 1989 43,100lb 192kN Boeing 757-200 Boeing 757-300 Tupolev Tu-204 243 3395
www.rolls-royce.com...
This is essentially a scaled down version of the -524. Its thrust range spans from 37,000 to 43,100 pounds-force (165 to 192 kN). It powers Boeing 757 and the Russian Tupolev Tu-204 airliner. It is 180-minute ETOPS rated. The later series shares common features with the later series -524 such as wide-chord fan and FADEC. The 535E-4 was proposed by Boeing for re-engining the B-52H Stratofortress, replacing the aircraft's eight TF33s with four of the turbofans.
www.answers.com... I'm waiting for some information on the dry weight of the engine, but I saw somewhere that it was 3.2 tons. I'd be really impressed if they hung two 40,000+ pound engines on those wings.



reply posted on 21-2-2006 @ 01:51 AM by kart69
Originally posted by ANOK Yeah right Kart, got ya So then if you're so smart and we're so dumn<(Spelling), why don't you explain to us all the anomilies<(spelling) that no one else can? I don't have to go to ANY website to see that the official story doesn't add up, not even close. Jeez I love posts like these, really helpfull... [edit on 21/2/2006 by ANOK]
No problem.......... First of all. Your post explains quite allot. It proves my theory. Your spelling of ANOMALIES could be forgiven, but your spelling of DUMB is just (well you know). Please list the anomalies that you would like to me to explain. I can not read your mind. I actually, would rather not. I am sure I can not explain everything, but I bet I can explain enough that any half intelligent person would be able to see that it was a plane (757). It actually should only take 1 or 2 examples to prove it. Every facet does not need to be proven or explained in any situation. It only takes enough to show that there was a 757 involved. There does not seem to be any proof that there was not a 757 involved. No missle parts, No truck remains that carried explosives, nothing that would actually point to anything other than a 757. I live in Oklahoma City, and I have seen first hand what an explosive device will do to a building. That was not a purpose built explosive device. It was not a truck filled with explosives as some people have insinuated. The damage was also not conducive to a missile that was designed to penetrate and explode. The explosive force would have blown the building up and out immediately with much more damage inside the building. This damage was done in a cone shape from the wide area of the impact zone to the very small area that was caused by some of the aircraft exiting the last wall. There was an explosion caused by the jet fuel, but it was not a explosion caused by a purpose built explosive device such as a missile or a bomb. I am not an expert, and I dont claim to know everything. I do know that common sense is very valuable when exact proof is not available. So fire away [edit on 21-2-2006 by kart69]


reply posted on 21-2-2006 @ 02:51 PM by rmwhitak
When you talk about the 16 foot hole in this article being the same size as a Boeing 757 you are in no way taking into account the wingspan or the 2 6 ton engines strapped to the wings. There is no damage to the windows or the building to the right or left of the hole which is obvious in the pictures taken before the collapse. How could an entire commerical airliner disappear through a 16 foot diameter hole? Where are the wings, which would have been clipped off when the plane struck the building? Where are the 2 6-ton 9 foot diameter engines from a 757? It is ridiculous to say that they penetrated inside the building because there is no damage but the 16 foot hole. It is also ridiculous to say that most of the plane burnt up, especially the engines. The engines on a Boeing 757 are made out of a titanium alloy. The melting point of titanium is somewhere around 1700 degrees Celcius. An a pure oxygen environment, which the earth certainly is not, jet fuel will burn at no more than 1500 degrees Celcius. Better estimates of both the fires in the WTC and the Pentagon were probably around 250 to 300 Celcius in the fires. This is obviously another question in the WTC. The steel in those building was rated to 2000 degrees C and once again the maximum that these fires could be burning at is less than 1500 degrees. I'm not saying that the government had something to do with it, but I think there are a lot of things about the situation that do not make sense and should most certainly be addressed. What really concerns me is the lack of any kind of attempt to provide an in-depth explanation of the events of that day by the US government. If anyone is interested, check out Loose Change - The Alex Jones Conspiracy on Google Video. I'm not a big believer in his conspiracy theory necessarily, but it prevents some fairly well-researched compelling evidence, plus it is pretty entertaining even if you don't buy into it.


reply posted on 22-2-2006 @ 06:22 AM by Zaphod58
Just for the sake of accuracy here, and I'm not gonna argue about what should have happened etc the 757-200 engines are NOT 6 tons, and 9 feet. They're 3.5 and 6. If we're gonna argue, let's at least get the facts straight, especially when it's so easy to do basic research and find out.
Model: Boeing757-200 Engines: (1)RB211-535C(16,980kg) (2)PW2037(17,343kg)
www.narita-airport.or.jp...
While the front fan of the RB211-535 has a 74.5-inch diameter, compression discs inside the engine are much smaller. Schwarz said the inner discs are between 29 and 41 inches in diameter. “It could well be” an inner compression disc, Schwarz said. The discs from the inner stages are made of titanium, he added.
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk... Again, I'm not arguing anything about what SHOULD have happened with the engines, just setting the record straight on some basic facts that anyone willing to do 2 minutes of research could have found. (It literally took me MAYBE 2 minutes to find the weight and diameter of the engine. First link on both searches.)


reply posted on 22-2-2006 @ 05:14 PM by xchox
Sorry but I didnt want to read 141 pages to find out but What exactly is being measured in this picture? ok what I mean is... there are lines going through wall? like arent the lines outlining the point of entry? So confused. I'm with piboy all the way on this one. If he even checks this thread anymore [edit on 22-2-2006 by xchox] [edit on 22-2-2006 by xchox]


reply posted on 22-2-2006 @ 08:06 PM by Zaphod58
Originally posted by supergrover I just find it hard to believe that a plane of that size travelling at that speed only made the small hole. Even though the walls and windows were reinforced. A 2 inch thick piece of reinforced glass is no match for a 757 with a full fule load travelling in excess of 350mph... A plane travelling at that speed, that low would make it very hard to make out any distinguishing features. Also any witness that says the plane flew over their head would surely have been blown at least a good couple of hundred metres just from the backward thrust of the engines. Not to mention any burns they would have received by the heat. Those engines running at full throttle can rip up runways and blow cars hundreds of feet away. I am surprised that the damage under the planes approach is very small. It should have made a much bigger swath of damage as it approached the Pentagon at that speed. I gotta admit though...I'm pretty much still on the fence with this argument.
First, the walls were reinforced to withstand a massive truck bomb being inches from them. We're talking tons of explosives. Second, engines DO NOT blow cars hundreds of feet, unless they catch them just right, and are able to lift them. I've been behind engines running at power, and nothing happened to me. Yeah there's a lot of heat, but not nearly as much as you think there is. It blends with the air and dissipates a lot faster than you realize. Not saying it's not hot, but it's not super hot like people think.
Pages: <<  134    135    136    137    138    139    140  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 19 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags